Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[LupusFatalis]

Aye: the Rule change to continue this game sounds good.

-- I like the vassal concept to drag this more toward co-op, but think it was ill posed. (i.e. the penalizing bit I dislike, I think a free trade of provinces between vassal and overlord is good, and the vassalage should be for life--so as not to allow ninja-victories). Similarly I don't think all normals should be able to be vassals, i.e. a cap of 2 vassals per overlord or something, further when your vassal dies you cannot replace him.
-- You already have my thoughts on the indie idea
-- I think the other modifications far too much.

[LupusFatalis]

I'd be interested to hear atul's thoughts.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by LupusFatalis

Aye: the Rule change to continue this game sounds good.

-- I like the vassal concept to drag this more toward co-op, but think it was ill posed. (i.e. the penalizing bit I dislike, I think a free trade of provinces between vassal and overlord is good, and the vassalage should be for life--so as not to allow ninja-victories). Similarly I don't think all normals should be able to be vassals, i.e. a cap of 2 vassals per overlord or something, further when your vassal dies you cannot replace him.
-- You already have my thoughts on the indie idea
-- I think the other modifications far too much.

That vassals can actually back out while Overlords cannot eject vassals means its actually more power for the vassal. A vassal should be able to look for a new lord if they're willing to sever their ties. They have to pay for the privilege to make it inconvenient, but that they even have the option is a power for them.

Vassals and Overlords can freely trade provinces - no limitations were laid between the interactions of allies. There's merely a restriction on attacks when a Vassal severs ties with an overlord.

I'd rather give Overlords enough Vassal slots to make some vassals early, and still have slots left for later use. Its a more interesting diplomatic game if the Overlords have more latitude to reward allies. Why do you think 2 is superior to 5?

Why do you think the other changes went to far? Its hard to respond to 'gone too far'. Why are the rules as proposed a bad idea?

[LupusFatalis]

To me I see (0+2)/5 dead&dying overlords and (4+4)/16 dead&dying normals... either way your looking at about half the people are dead or dying and there is no statistical difference between those groups.

Overlords have a unique set of restrictions that requires unique workarounds. Throwing out that concept because it was too difficult for 2 people (who had other factors going against them as well) is kind of absurd.

So yeah, I'm all for tweaking the victory conditions and some screwy restrictions like the capital bit (which I too for some reason read as no storming). I'm definitely for making dom nuetral/indie provinces always viable targets--and this is a huge boon, probably more than they need. I'm not for essentially what would amount to a complete change in concept, i.e those suggested items.

Anyhow, that's why I'm interested to hear from the more successful people in this game and see what the deal was. i.e. did they actually overcome it, was it a gimmick or based on the map, maybe it was the result of some fancy bartering? I don't know.

[rdonj]

No changes are set in stone yet. I do like some of squirrel's ideas, though not necessarily all of them. I am pretty much planning on putting everything up to a vote (when the game is over or nearly there). I am against certain core changes to the concept myself but I will present all suggestions for review.

[Squirrelloid]

The politicking i was more interested in was the Normal-Overlord interactions. Your system basically can essentially remove the Overlord from the politics of the game, because it removes virtually all interesting political choices the Overlord can choose as an initiator.

[LumenPlacidum]

What are the interesting choices that have been lost? Seems like all I proposed was a way for a normal to have some say in the matter of who's going to be a vassal.

Actually, what incentive is there for vassals to be chosen at all? Since each side of the 'deal' only has restricted options once the deal is made, and there are no rules against working together WITHOUT the vassalage (nor should there be), wouldn't it be in the best interest of everyone involved to simply wait until victory conditions can be met and then to pick them at the end, avoiding the punishments and restrictions of the system entirely?

[LupusFatalis]

5 Vassals allows for more vassals than we have normals. It also allows for ~1/4 of the players to win simultaneously? It gives no incentive for an overlord to keep all of his vassals alive, he has a spare slot even. Making it a permanent choice locks in those incentives and removes the ambiguity that they'll have with normal allies. And as I stated, if they have to fulfill win conditions together, being able to opt-out allows for a normal to fulfill normal win conditions as a vassal, opt out and win.

The swallowing a vassal to become a vassal idea is interesting, but not sure I like it--need to consider it more.

[Squirrelloid]

There are no normal win conditions...

The incentives for a normal to become a vassal are so that it can win the game. A normal without a master may be perceived as particularly dangerous because he is ronin.

The incentive for the Overlords is maintaining a large set of vassals allows them to win easier (ie, I suggested reduce number of fortresses needed).

The incentives for both sides to enter a vassalage agreement are guaranteed peace - they become your ally.

And vassal agreements are permanent, even beyond death of the vassal, unless the vassal chooses to end it. (Obviously, a dead vassal can pay no indemnity, and can make no choices). That was included in my first post on the matter.

As to more total vassal slots than normals.
(1) I imagine we'll run with 5 overlords instead of 6 for next time.
(2) We want Overlords to compete for the normal's favor, so we want Overlords to have enough Vassal slots that *vassals* and not slots are in short supply.

Finally, normals should not be able to force themselves into a vassalage position by fiat. Vassal slots are something given to Overlords as a way of having something to give to normals, and an important part of their diplomacy and interaction with normals. The choosing of vassals is not something normals should be able to arrogate for themselves. The choice of vassal is the Overlords, and assuming the intended target accepts, they have to live with that choice.

[namad]

so are we making a rule change and continuing? if we don't decide soon people might lose interest and we'll lose the chance to decide for ourselves (time will decide for us)...